The Housers Podcast

'My firm recently won the nod through a Request for Proposal (RFP) to build a 123+ unit mixed income development for the upscale town of Dorset, VT. In the midst of negotiating a development agreement, detractors for the project made themselves known. For several months and with our help, town leadership prepared to advocate for their efforts which had to that point totaled more than eight years and cost around $600,000.00.' 'A month prior to a second public hearing which would have featured yours truly and the SMG team to re-present the project and the principles behind our rural density concept, we received an email from the town's consultant: 'the award is cancelled, the town will proceed to a vote in 9 months in hopes to build 60 units of high-end single family housing. We will place the project back out to bid. This concludes our relationship.'

Our parent company, SMGraves Associates recently won the nod to build 123+ units of workforce and moderate income market rate housing in the town of Dorset, VT.  This was slated to be a $90MM project and one of the first in Vermont to take advantage of new programming including the Communities Housing Infrastructure Program or CHIP.  NIMBYs cratered the project before it even got off the ground and after the SMG team won the Request for Proposal process SMG founder and podcast host Scott Graves offers us what consequences there are to our institutions when a small group of wealthy individuals can impact a community in this way.   You can find out more about the SMG team and their Rural Density approach to responsible development by clicking here.  Don't forget to subscribe to founder Scott Graves Substack for more content.   

Today's Episode is taken from host Scott Graves 'Are We Here Yet? substack of January 2, 2026.  The following is a transcript. Explore the Are We Here Yet? substack Our city completed a round of dispossessing themselves of properties they own this past November. These properties were acquired sometime in the past because their last owners failed to pay their property taxes, were abandoned after the death of an owner or other reasons. Our director of planning alluded to more than 220 such properties in our city of 16,500 people during our recent podcast. The city then acquired the properties through a tax lien foreclosure in the case of tax troubles. Some parcels have an abandoned home on them. Some are empty lots. All are no longer productive for providing housing or generating taxes for needed municipal expenditures. All of these parcels sit on city infrastructure. They were all once productive from a property tax standpoint. They provided middle market housing while homeowners paid property taxes in support of the water and sewer lines, the sidewalks and other infrastructure surrounding their property. I've had the opportunity to witness the process of dispossession of municipally controlled properties for many decades and in several of cities and towns in different parts of New England. What's built into each municipal process tells us a lot about each community. Here we'll focus on my current location in Rutland, VT. I had the opportunity to participate in our city's fall 2025 process as part of a partnership focused on incremental development. The application to apply for one or more of a selection of five properties stipulated that the process was not competitive (highest bidder); 'The City is seeking to recoup the amount of taxes owed in addition to whatever carrying costs accrued since acquiring the property. However, the City may accept a lower offer depending on the circumstances…' that all applications are considered for all listed parameters including proof you can complete a development, the quality of your plan and its relationship to the city's long term housing needs. Yet, the application asks each candidate how much they'd be willing to pay for each property and candidates can opt to pay any amount over the tax bill and city costs. The public meeting to review and vote in the presence of applicants began with our city planning director stating that the priority was placed on , 'making the city whole' through the process. It's not clear exactly how in practice these bids are considered against each other. During the public opening of all applications, the dollar amounts presented were announced. So is the point to achieve a highest bidder? Best plan to add housing units? Most likely to be able to pay? The committee, made up of alderpersons selected for the purpose, debated the overall dollar amounts of taxes 'accrued while the property was in city hands'. The idea of a tax bill accruing without a private owner of the property is, to put it politely, a highly theoretical exercise. What would incentivize me to pay over and above the former private owners delinquent taxes when, by definition, I'm required to, 'make the city whole'. Second, in considering whether taxes accrue to a non-existent private owner after municipal acquisition reminds me of the adage, 'if a tree falls in the woods with nobody there to hear it…' The application requests information as to how the applicant will pay for the property and development. If one indicates they will utilize a debt instrument from a local bank, proof of the loan is required. But how does one seek credible proof of a specific loan for a property for which one has no site control? Let's look at the yield this process has had in the recent past. Despite efforts, a number of past applicants who successfully acquired properties have yet to develop them, leaving abandoned homes in place for, in some cases, more than five years. While there does not exist a comprehensive list of said properties, through our efforts at Partners In Housing, we understand there are a number of homes acquired by developers who, for strategic reasons only they know, are left fallow. While the taxes may get paid, the housing units people need remain elusive. What was our own experience? We applied for an empty lot alongside one of the cities respected non profits. We were told the city had purchased the lot from a different non profit in the recent past for $1.00. To our knowledge no taxes were owed on the property . This was confirmed as the city planner presented information at the onset of the hearing. The non-profit entity was allowed to review their application first. To our astonishment, the executive director's plan was frighteningly similar to ours, right down to the language used to refer to 'panelized or modular construction'. Same number of units. Same overall footprint. Same construction principles. Nearly same target markets. Difference between rentals vs ownership for the residents. Ok, so it may be possible that two different developers have very, extremely similar ideas for the same lot. Said executive director than offered that, since their organization had recently come into a large donation, they were willing to pay $20,000.00 over the cities required $1.00 for the property. Since we were not willing to go over and above 'making the city whole' the property was awarded to the non-profit. One alderwoman stated that, theirs was the better deal for the city. After all, why should the city not accept the infusion of cash. Indeed, this refutes the rules within the city's own application. Am I crying bitter tears? The loss of this project will not negatively affect our company. Was I happy with the process? Do I trust the process? Do I think all parties have the best interests at heart of myself or my neighbors? I want us to focus on the singular question, 'how do we increase our tax rolls while increasing the local capacity to build and benefit from more middle market housing?' All good outcomes stem from well thought out, consistently executed process. That starts with clarity for our priorities. So what should be our community priorities? The community's singular priorities should be: a) to return more properties back to tax roll productivity faster b) seek to proliferate small scale development opportunities for its citizens interested in doing their part to solve the middle market housing crisis. c) encourage a more vibrant local economy though development and the trades. d) increase the public trust through consistent and effective processes. The process itself can be automated through digital infrastructure, placing more lots before a public eager to get in the game. The internal processes and reallocation of human resources required for such changes can increase capacity while making for a more fair and transparent process, thereby increasing the belief in the common good. It may appear to you that a city that works aggressively to garner as much short term, one time revenue for such properties is looking out for tax payers interests. I don't think so. Lots that aren't productive today aren't housing citizens and aren't providing needed tax benefit to pay for infrastructure. Taxes get paid every year a household is made productive, for decades to come. Elected officials and their agents should understand there are only two ways a city makes money: new households that sustain needs while keeping per household tax bills down or the need to increase per household taxes as expenses rise. I wrote about this here. To support organic growth also presents an excellent opportunity for building political capital for those elected officials willing to participate in informing their constituents. Your tax rate stays put or reduces. We get more housing. We can fund increasing expenses such as new sewer and water lines when they pop. A big picture emerges with stronger and safer neighborhoods full of new housing. Improved sidewalks, plantings and other placemaking infrastructure sustainably funded. Future improvements to sewer and water systems now be well funded making our city more resilient. All grand list expenditures become more feasible for decades to come. And new households seeking an opportunity to stay in our great state of Vermont find the housing they need to make our great corner of the world thrive.  

Author Ryan Short's 2025 The Civic Brand: The Power & Responsibility of Place caught our attention for a singular reason.  One of the books many underlying themes is to choose substance over shallow 'solutions'.  Why do we hang new banners downtown every 5 years when we make no substantive investments in small business to fill those empty storefronts?  Why do we collect data points to defend projects rather than define them? Ryan talks about taking action to discover the real issues at play, then solving the problems.  Without this, do you have a civic brand?  Here, at the 'Are We Here Yet?' Podcast and SMG we couldn't agree more.  Is our community's brand a swift-looking logo and color swatch and no more? Or should we demand more of ourselves?  Ryan co-founded his firm Civic Brand with wife Banner Short in 2008. Since then, the couple have assisted communities large and small throughout the country to realize more meaningful civic brands and civic life at the core of those new strategies. 

Michael Cohen is a partner and founding member of Lean Real Estate, a successful investment firm buying directly from owners.  The team at Lean applies lean manufacturing principles to real estate investment, which has helped the team of three stay focused and well disciplined in every aspect of their operation.   Learn from Michael how to apply lean principles to your operation in our episode, plus understand more about the Burlington, Vermont real estate market.  Burlington is one of Vermont's highest performing markets for increasing value as is Chittenden county as a whole, which has been good for some and a challenge for those seeking stable and desirable places to live in what is a dynamic and very attractive part of the country, along the shores of Lake Champlain.

Listeners to our podcast will recall we've spoken about defining your target market(s) for renters or owners while considering how the physical environment around them can enhance their success and yours.  Our guest this week has developed an innovative model combining infill pocket neighborhood development with programming and commercial amenities that serve families with developmentally challenged children. Taiese Hickman is founder of the New England Equity Collective.  She is playing the role of property developer, property manager and non-profit leader.  Learn what's gone into the business so far, launching their first project in the spring of 2026.

Darren Sherburne is Associate Broker of Four Seasons Sotheby's Fairlee VT office and an active houser developing a variety of properties in the Upper Valley region of New Hampshire and Vermont. Darren reports on the current housing challenges in his region and gave us plenty to think about regarding how to get more of your housers started, where the funding can come from, what policy measures could improve our situation in Vermont and Northern New England.   You'll appreciate Darren's focused intent on successful building, successful housing. 

I'm joined this week by Ed Bove, the Planning Director for my hometown of Rutland, Vermont, USA.  A year into his tenure Ed is leading the effort to refine our cities zoning regulations to reflect an effort to build 1000 units of housing in five years.   Listen to Ed's 2024 interview for the Are We Here Yet? Podcast. We discussed the inner workings of the ongoing regs themselves, what changes are needed and why and the vision for what our community desires for results.  We discussed the shortcomings and challenges for building middle market housing in Rutland and solutions for proliferating projects and small-scale developers who focus on gentle density projects in neighborhoods.  The potential is there: we have some 220 unutilized properties and empty lots previously occupied by houses.  Ed and his team have been challenged with recent changes to our planning commission, highlighted in our recent essay on substack. Host Scott Graves is one half of the leadership of local housers advocates Partners In Housing, who is currently encouraging the participation of more housers: people involved in housing, to represent on municipal bodies.  Listen in to stay informed on how you can help in Rutland or to learn from our local efforts to bring similar outcomes to your community.

I had the distinct pleasure to sit down with two leading voices from the Congress for New Urbanism this past spring for a frank conversation on our current housing crisis. Their different ages and life experiences offer us a wealth of perspective to learn from and leverage.  Let's dive right in to learn together in order to better each of our efforts to solve the issues of housing in America.  Todd Zimmerman and his partner Laurie Volk founded Zimmerman/Volk Associates four decades ago, to address the walkability and economic viability of cities and towns throughout the United States. They developed over that time their own methodology for completing the work they performed. Both got their start as journalists and like so many of us who came to development from a non-traditional background, leveraged their skills to bring fresh ideas to the realm of the built environment. Carlos Sainz Caccia is a Mexican born Urban planner living and working in Boston Massachusetts for the leading firm Utile.  His perspective particularly caught my attention in the fall of 2024 as I participated in a debate on the merits of CNU's voice in solving the current housing crisis during CNU's regional conference in Providence, RI.  We start our discussion with Carlos's take on what's driving housing's unaffordability.  These conversations often quickly stream into the social, financial, cultural and other worlds that contribute to the problem but inform possible solutions.  We then move to a broader look at the issues contributing with Todd.  We're going to present these conversations over several episodes.  Thanks for our friends at the Congress for New Urbanism for suggesting these interviews and introducing us to Carlos and Todd.  We hope you enjoy.

Host Scott Graves is once again joined by Stephen Box, Scott's partner in Partners in Housing, small scale housing developments in Vermont and columnist under the column header, the accidental activist. Stephen is also our co-host for The Housers Podcast.  Stephen and Scott explain for listeners how a more aggressive approach to building market rate housing in the US could benefit the affordable housing market.  Our ideas are backed by research including the data we offered in the UpJohn Institute's working paper penned by Evan Mast.   We also touch upon why providing economic development programming to empower local residents, coupled with increasing home values in a given market is the antidote to gentrification.  Find Stephen's column the Accidential Activist in the Mountain Times Subscribe to The Housers Podcast Subscribe to the Are We Here Yet? Podcast  Learn more about  the Partners In Housing Fund 

Vermont isn't just shrinking in population, its aging.  The state has 30,000 fewer working age citizens between 25-40 then it did 25 years ago.  This, while modest population gains during the Covid-19 pandemic has reversed. For those of us at the Innova802 Crew, we see the effects every day.  Many citizens on fixed incomes, who represent a larger share of the population, cannot afford increases to taxes for education, infrastructure and public healthcare subsidies.   For many, the gut reaction is to say, no new Vermont citizens, no new Vermont students, no new Vermont employers taking in  public investment dollars.  While this may seem intuitively correct, it is in fact the path to a downward economic cycle that becomes very challenging to reverse, especially for rural states. We hosted Kevin Chu, Executive Director of the Vermont Futures Project during season nine of the Are We Here Yet? podcast.  One year later, the Innova802 crew had him back to talk about the effort to get all Vermonters on the same page, writing a book of growth in order to create a more livable Vermont bursting at the seams with opportunity and the right balance between caring for our neighbors and having the ability to pay for it.  Listen to VFP on Marketplace This Are We Here Yet? podcast is in association with the Innova802 podcast. This conversation on rural development is so important, we're hosting it on The Housers Podcast, too!

We're joined by Julie Marks of the Vermont Short Term Rental Alliance (VTSTRA) to take a deeper look at what STRs mean to the Vermont economy and what role STRs play or don't play in the housing crisis in Vermont and in the country. Listeners will get a sense for the profile of many STR owners and what role STRs can play in housing people under a variety of circumstances. In the Housers hometown of Rutland, VT local leadership has opposing views on the role of STRs.  We hope to spark a vibrant and balanced conversation to benefit our community's housing ecosystem through our podcast and advocacy for the use of STRs.  Julie will be joining us on April 25, 2025 1:30PM for a live and in-person discussion during the monthly meeting of our advocacy group Partners in Housing.  This will take place at The Hub CoWorks and by  remote meeting.

Host and founder Scott Graves is asking some tough questions for all of us to ask in our own communities.  How do we get beyond a place of manufactured scarcity and support all forms of private and public housing development to meet our middle market needs?  Find Scott's Latest Essays from An Artist Audio recording on The Housers Podcast and the Are We Here Yet? Podcast.  Find his housing advocacy work, along with Housers Stephen Box and Mike Waugh at partnersinhousingvt.com.

Co-hosts Stephen Box and Scott Graves rattle on regarding the four rules Alexandre Behringused when he took charge and began scripting the critical moves, not all the moves, just the critical moves for the Brazilian Railroad.  He implemented four rules with a focused commitment to the destination which he defined as financial solvency and operational efficiency.  Can a similar tactic be leveraged to solve Vermont's ongoing housing crisis?  Can Vermont then be an example to the rest of the United States for solving our national housing dilemma?  Are we in over our heads at The Housers Podcast?  We say, go big or don't build any housing!  Find the companion article for this podcast in the Mountain Times 'Accidental Activist' Column by Stephen Box.

Stephen Box and his family moved to Rutland VT from Los Angeles. Like many others they left the city during covid to seek their fortunes in rural America. Stephen is an accidental activist.  He doesn't take no for an answer.  As founder of Partners in Housing, as columnist in the Mountain Times and a Rutland Houser Stephen looms large over a community of dedicated small-scale landlords serving their city.  When he connected with developer Scott Graves in 2024, a match made in heaven was forged. Enter Mike Waugh, technologist and sometime contractor working on a platform solution for helping small-scale housers to scale.   They are the Housers and they are bringing together Housers, Wrappers and Supporters to make this corner of Vermont a home for more of their working class neighbors. In partnership with the Mountain Times.  Find MT real estate special here.